What constitutes proof?

[_JAK]

JAK, what do you think of this report:

The American Psychological Association (APA):
Philip G Zimbardo, PhD wrote an article during 1990 for the APA Monitor titled: "What messages are behind today’s cults?" 1 He is professor of psychology at Stanford University and a former APA president. Some excerpts from his article are:

"Cult methods of recruiting, indoctrinating and influencing their members are not exotic forms of mind control, but only more intensely applied mundane tactics of social influence practiced daily by all compliance professionals and societal agents of influence."
"...cult leaders offer simple solutions to the increasingly complex world problems we all face daily. They offer the simple path to happiness, to success, to salvation by following their simple rules, simple group regimentation and simple total lifestyle. Ultimately, each new member contributes to the power of the leader by trading his or her freedom for the illusion of security and reflected glory that group membership holds out."
"Cult mind control is not different in kind from these everyday varieties, but in its greater intensity, persistence, duration, and scope."

Ronald Enroth wrote in 1994:

"The American Psychological Association, along with nearly two dozen individual scholars and behavioral scientists, filed an amicus [friend of the court] brief in 1987 in behalf of the Unification Church in the California Supreme Court. ... The APA and its co-amici argued that there was little scientific support for 'brainwashing' theory. Both the National Council of Churches and the Christian Legal Society filed briefs in this same case." 11

http://www.religioustolerance.org/brain_wa.htm

Ray,

There are several different statements in what you have reprinted.

One statement: "Cult methods of recruiting, indoctrinating and influencing their members are not exotic forms of mind control, but only more intensely applied mundane tactics of social influence practiced daily by all compliance professionals and societal agents of influence."

The phrase exotic forms is certainly open for interpretation. I’m skeptical of the conclusion that there is no difference in the kinds of persuasion used. A group or individual which lacks evidence but takes a strong position has to rely on emotional appeal and indoctrination. On the other hand, science which relies on evidence not only rejects “mind control” as a method, but it invites skepticism. Why is that? It’s because science wants to get it right. Religion claims that it has it right. Evidence is not only not require, it is often rejected.

Cults do recruit by indoctrination. They also engage in “mind control.” Whether that might be regarded as “exotic” is an evaluation/judgment.

“More intensely applied mundane tactics of social influence…” might be regarded as “exotic.” What are “compliance professionals”? How are they different from competent professionals?

I think we have a word-game at work here.

Another statement from your quote:

"...cult leaders offer simple solutions to the increasingly complex world problems we all face daily.”

Simple solution to complex problem has generally been a technique of religious groups. It’s flawed. Complex problems generally require complex solutions.

Consider the totality of a space launch today or the first one done. It was complex. The problems were complex as were the solutions. They did not rely on simple solutions as does religion.

The appeal of religion is emotional. People like the idea of simple solution. So religion sells well with some. It does not sell at all with science or any of the branches of science (medical science). Studies and tests are required to establish evidence for reliable conclusion.

Religion has no such methodology.

Also:

“They offer the simple path to happiness, to success, to salvation by following their simple rules, simple group regimentation and simple total lifestyle.”

They have not established validity for the claim “salvation” in the religious use of that term. The “offer” is really another assertion which appeals to some who want easy answers.

Also:

“Ultimately, each new member contributes to the power of the leader by trading his or her freedom for the illusion of security and reflected glory that group membership holds out."

"Cult mind control is not different in kind from these everyday varieties, but in its greater intensity, persistence, duration, and scope."

I agree that in many religious groups there is a sacrifice of “…freedom for the illusion of security…”

That religious mind control is “not different” but that it has “greater intensity, persistence, duration, and scope” is a contradiction. "Intensity, persistence, duration, and scope" make it different.

The words you quote demonstrate a difference. In that, I disagree with the obvious contradiction.

Example:

If I ask you do something, that’s an effort to control.

If I ask to do something and add: If you don’t do it, you’ll go to hell, it is different and it’s also an effort to control.

There is much more to be addressed, but this is a look at the quotes you offered.

We have had a national debate recently about: What is torture?

Is water boarding torture? We are dealing with a definition in the debate of the question. What is a general consensus of torture?

If the act is being done to you, you may have a very different answer to the question than if you read about the act being done to someone else whom you do not see.

Behind closed doors, “cult mind control” is different than reading an ad in the paper for high definition television. The advertiser wants you to come in and buy a product.

The cult wants you to come in and surrender your free will and your capacity to think.

I would contend there is a significant difference. Yet in each case, someone wants to control behavior.

What do you think, Ray?

JAK

[_amantha]

I think it falls under a sixth sense. The word feeling is used because the English (and most other languages) have no closer description. I really think LDS should come up with a vocabulary for different kinds of experiences.

Frangelations, Dipsoborf, Wenallate. Just throwing out ideas. ;)

....Self-Delusionations, Credulisity, Lemmingence just to add a few.

[_JAK]

JAK, what do you think of this report:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/brain_wa.htm

An excerpt I found interesting:

"Beliefs promoted by the Anti-cult Movement:

Many individuals in the Anti-cult Movement (ACM) have attempted to raise public consciousness about what they perceive to be a major public threat, mainly to youth and young adults. They believe that many NRMs (new religious movements) are profoundly evil. These groups, which they call "cults" are seen as:

*Recruiting large numbers of young people into their religious groups, by using deceptive techniques.
*Subjecting them to severe mind-control processes that were first developed in communist countries, and subsequently developed by *NRMs to a much higher level of refinement.
*Destroying their followers' ability to think critically and to make independent decisions.
*Endangering their followers. Many groups have induced their members to commit suicide.

Many in the ACM see NRMs as being particularly efficient in attracting normal, intelligent older teens and young adults, and convincing them to:

* Donate major amounts of time and effort to the group,
* Uncritically accept its teachings,
* Conform to their behavioral restrictions and
* Make a permanent commitment to remain in the NRM.

Extensive confirmation for these beliefs has come from disillusioned former NRM members. A small minority of those psychologists who specialize in the mind-control field also support the ACM's conclusions. "

I know this is derailing the thread a bit (since it's mine, maybe I can do that....), and it belongs on the cult thread, but is it possible that the "Mormon mind" is so programmed to perceive certain feelings as "spiritual," that they literally cannot recognize it is nothing more than a feeling?

Yes to your question.

JAK

[_The Nehor]

I think it falls under a sixth sense. The word feeling is used because the English (and most other languages) have no closer description. I really think LDS should come up with a vocabulary for different kinds of experiences.

Frangelations, Dipsoborf, Wenallate. Just throwing out ideas. ;)

....Self-Delusionations, Credulisity, Lemmingence just to add a few.

I'd use those but they're close to preexisting words. Wouldn't want people to get confused.

[_Ray A]

There are several different statements in what you have reprinted.

One statement: "Cult methods of recruiting, indoctrinating and influencing their members are not exotic forms of mind control, but only more intensely applied mundane tactics of social influence practiced daily by all compliance professionals and societal agents of influence."

The phrase exotic forms is certainly open for interpretation. I’m skeptical of the conclusion that there is no difference in the kinds of persuasion used. A group or individual which lacks evidence but takes a strong position has to rely on emotional appeal and indoctrination. On the other hand, science which relies on evidence not only rejects “mind control” as a method, but it invites skepticism. Why is that? It’s because science wants to get it right. Religion claims that it has it right. Evidence is not only not require, it is often rejected.

JAK,

I should point out there is no overall consensus about brain-washing. Scientists are still debating it. I'm not sure what they mean by "exotic" either. I have been the subject of Scientology attempts to convert me, way back in the 1980s, and I thought that was "exotic". I felt they did put more pressure on than Mormons or JWs. The latter two are almost benign compared to Scientology. But then, the Catholics do not put any pressure on anyone (at least in modern times). And, admittedly, is was far easier for me to leave Catholicism than Mormonism. Hardly any real comparison, but I have some qualifiers to make.

Cults do recruit by indoctrination. They also engage in “mind control.” Whether that might be regarded as “exotic” is an evaluation/judgment.

It would take a lot to persuade me Mormonism is a cult. While Catholics don't "recruit by indoctrination", they certainly "brainwash" children. I know because I was one of them, from birth until I was 20. At home, and in schools. So you may have to clarify whether you think Catholicism is a cult. Because they don't knock on doors doesn't mean they don't indoctrinate. All religions indoctrinate, and in some sense recruit. I've had Baptist and Seventh Day Adventists ministers knocking on my door.

“More intensely applied mundane tactics of social influence…” might be regarded as “exotic.” What are “compliance professionals”? How are they different from competent professionals?

I think we have a word-game at work here.

See above.

Another statement from your quote:

"...cult leaders offer simple solutions to the increasingly complex world problems we all face daily.”

Simple solution to complex problem has generally been a technique of religious groups. It’s flawed. Complex problems generally require complex solutions.

Consider the totality of a space launch today or the first one done. It was complex. The problems were complex as were the solutions. They did not rely on simple solutions as does religion.

The appeal of religion is emotional. People like the idea of simple solution. So religion sells well with some. It does not sell at all with science or any of the branches of science (medical science). Studies and tests are required to establish evidence for reliable conclusion.

Religion has no such methodology.

I agree that religion offers simple solutions in regard to some complex problems. Quoting scripture to a couple with complex marital problems, for example, won't work. On the other hand I've seen much family love and solidarity revolve around churches, and especially the LDS Church (many personal friends and family I know), and those same scriptures. It can give people a sense of meaning, direction, and unity of purpose (whether this emphasis is "right" if the Church is a "fraud" is another debate). Arguably, however, families who follow football, car racing, rotary, scouting, or bird-watching, to give random examples, might also feel some sense of unity (perhaps not an "exotic" one), without the pressure. "Simple religions solutions" may also provide a moral compass for many. You may dispute this, but I'm not saying it works for everyone. So I would say there are two sides, a "simple side" of humanity which religion reaches (aesthetic, spiritual, whatever), and gives meaning to, and a more complex side it can't reach, which is where we come to medicine, science, etc. Neither the Bible, the Quran, nor the Book of Mormon is going to solve the Middle East problem, and the first two are arguably a big factor in those problems.

Also:

“They offer the simple path to happiness, to success, to salvation by following their simple rules, simple group regimentation and simple total lifestyle.”

They have not established validity for the claim “salvation” in the religious use of that term. The “offer” is really another assertion which appeals to some who want easy answers.

See above for the split definitions. People can find a lot of happiness in simplicity, and I suppose you've heard them say it all the time, "the gospel is beautifully simple, and simply beautiful". Trite, I know, but that's how they feel. Many of them don't even want to hear about the problems, controversies, difficulties. The downside may be a narrowish view of life, and others, and this is something I struggled with in the mid-1980s - why would God save only Mormons, or at least give only them the "official passport". Hence my slow shift to religious liberalism. My loss of faith as a TBM did not affect any of my LDS peers, except one I can think of, who wanted to read what I read.

Also:

“Ultimately, each new member contributes to the power of the leader by trading his or her freedom for the illusion of security and reflected glory that group membership holds out."

"Cult mind control is not different in kind from these everyday varieties, but in its greater intensity, persistence, duration, and scope."

I agree that in many religious groups there is a sacrifice of “…freedom for the illusion of security…”

That religious mind control is “not different” but that it has “greater intensity, persistence, duration, and scope” is a contradiction. "Intensity, persistence, duration, and scope" make it different.

The words you quote demonstrate a difference. In that, I disagree with the obvious contradiction.

Example:

If I ask you do something, that’s an effort to control.

If I ask to do something and add: If you don’t do it, you’ll go to hell, it is different and it’s also an effort to control.

There is much more to be addressed, but this is a look at the quotes you offered.

We have had a national debate recently about: What is torture?

Is water boarding torture? We are dealing with a definition in the debate of the question. What is a general consensus of torture?

If the act is being done to you, you may have a very different answer to the question than if you read about the act being done to someone else whom you do not see.

Behind closed doors, “cult mind control” is different than reading an ad in the paper for high definition television. The advertiser wants you to come in and buy a product.

The cult wants you to come in and surrender your free will and your capacity to think.

I would contend there is a significant difference. Yet in each case, someone wants to control behavior.

On this last point is probably where I disagree more. When I became a Mormon in 1975 I didn't feel I was "surrendering my capacity to think" (not as intimidating as the Scientology experience in Sydney). In fact, I never felt that as a Mormon, at any time. My thinking as a 20 year old certainly wasn't as advanced as it is now, barely sophisticated, and I was a bit emotionally vulnerable. But at the time it brought a great sense of meaning to me, more than I had ever felt in my life, hence my enthusiasm to go on a mission. They didn't asked me, I asked them! The problem I see with many exmos now is that they didn't have this choice, just like I had no choice with Catholicism, and getting out of Catholicism is considerably easier than getting out of Mormonism. "Controlling behaviour" through fear is a point I can agree with if you view Mormonism as false, but the true believer does not see this as control. Ask Charity. Ask Dan Peterson if he thinks anyone is controlling him. If you ask exmos on RFM, then yes, it becomes a control issue if the person has no belief left, is involuntarily staying through pressure, going through the motions. In fact you might ask Tom Cruise if he thinks Scientology controls him. So we have to come down to finer points here. Who are "the controlled"? The exmo who shouts "dupe" to the TBM isn't getting a point across, only antagonising, and belittling. And if they wanted to reason, as you are doing now, it would be far more effective.

This is where we come back to the OP. "What constitutes proof?" If in Charity's mind she has "proof" through testimony, the Holy Ghost, then the only way to persuade her she's being controlled is to convince her she's in a fraud, and that the HG cannot do this, and that it's pure emotion (shockingly, I'm inclined to the latter view now after re-reading my journals which were written when I was active and teaching in the Church, not threads on MDB, or Steve Benson's rants on RFM, and definitely not angry exmos! I had forgotten all this). I have heard Dan Peterson say that he wouldn't stay if he became convinced it was a fraud, but he's totally persuaded it isn't, so there are no "control issues" for him, or Charity.

So we really need to get back to the OP. What constitutes proof? How are you going to prove to someone that the Holy Ghost wasn't/isn't inspiring them, unless they actually see the evidence in their own life? No anti-Mormon work could have shattered my own confidence more than what I actually recorded some eight years ago, at a time I was active and even teaching in the Church.

By the way, you asked what I think. I think you're a very clear thinker, but we might have to work on some finer points.

[_The Nehor]

Where do we get the idea that the Gospel is simple?

[_Ray A]

Where do we get the idea that the Gospel is simple?

This idea always has been, and when I was last at Church, was still being expressed. It's another way of saying, "I don't want to know about the problems, because I'm happy, I have meaning in life, I believe, and no matter what, it's true". This is not, by the way, a sentiment I ridicule. My own philosophy is believe whatever you want, if it makes you a better person, a better citizen, a better husband, father, wife, mother, son, daughter, and as long as it doesn't impinge on the rights and liberties of others. (I think that's what Jefferson had in mind too, and he was a harsh critic of the clergy.)

[_The Nehor]

Where do we get the idea that the Gospel is simple?

This idea always has been, and when I was last at Church, was still being expressed. It's another way of saying, "I don't want to know about the problems, because I'm happy, I have meaning in life, I believe, and no matter what, it's true". This is not, by the way, a sentiment I ridicule. My own philosophy is believe whatever you want, if it makes you a better person, a better citizen, a better husband, father, wife, mother, son, daughter, and as long as it doesn't impinge on the rights and liberties of others. (I think that's what Jefferson had in mind too, and he was a harsh critic of the clergy.)

To be honest I don't recall ever hearing the Gospel as a whole called simple. I've heard parts of it described that way. Will listen for that in future.

[_Ray A]

To be honest I don't recall ever hearing the Gospel as a whole called simple. I've heard parts of it described that way. Will listen for that in future.

I heard it through the '70s and 80s mainly. It does seem to be a phrase that's used less these days. But in the late '70s the Church, for me and most of those I know, was different. It was far more laid back, and a much more easy-going atmosphere. It was, to use a cliché, like "one big family". I think that innocence started going by the mid-1980s. It was never the same. With major growth, I think that innocence was lost.

[_The Nehor]

To be honest I don't recall ever hearing the Gospel as a whole called simple. I've heard parts of it described that way. Will listen for that in future.

I heard it through the '70s and 80s mainly. It does seem to be a phrase that's used less these days. But in the late '70s the Church, for me and most of those I know, was different. It was far more laid back, and a much more easy-going atmosphere. It was, to use a cliché, like "one big family". I think that innocence started going by the mid-1980s. It was never the same. With major growth, I think that innocence was lost.

Well, what with the Second Coming in three years we had to go a little nuts.